>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon Clubley <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The French group were supposed to be creating a letter in response to
VSI's totally out of touch reply. Did this ever happen because I have
not seen it posted here ?

Simon.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(Thanks Simon for your attention)

Maybe it is time for us to say that we did send a second letter to VSI
on May 7th after their unsatisfying answer (that they decided to make
public via gtug.de).

We provided customers concerns and feedbacks on inconsistencies in the
licensing policy.

We suggested ways for a positive exit on this VSI originated crisis but
are still waiting for a reaction.

We plan to keep users informed but have no answer from VSI yet.

VMSgenerations working group

On 2021-05-25, VMSgenerations working group <working.group@vmsgenerations.fr> wrote:
>
> Maybe it is time for us to say that we did send a second letter to VSI
> on May 7th after their unsatisfying answer (that they decided to make
> public via gtug.de).
>
> We provided customers concerns and feedbacks on inconsistencies in the
> licensing policy.
>
> We suggested ways for a positive exit on this VSI originated crisis but
> are still waiting for a reaction.
>

What kind of things did you suggest ?

Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and therefore
getting those licences early as a result).

I have suggested an escrow approach which (if done properly) should
satisfy most of the concerns.

> We plan to keep users informed but have no answer from VSI yet.
>

Thank you. Have VSI given you any indication when they might reply ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

In article <s8jeuu$air$2@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and therefore
> getting those licences early as a result).

How would that actually work? Presumably the goal is to have, say, 5
years after VSI goes bust to sort out some sort of alternative, and
presumably VSI doesn't want to sell licenses with no expiration because
they would rather have a steady revenue stream. Just having it expire
after 5 years wouldn't work if VSI goes bust after 4œ years. Perhaps
one could buy a 5-year license every year. However, that would mean
that a customer would then have several valid licenses, and apparently
VSI is also concerned about too many licenses being in circulation.
(Unloading and deleting the old one won't cut it, since people have
backups.)

On 5/25/2021 2:29 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <s8jeuu$air$2@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
> <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>> Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and therefore
>> getting those licences early as a result).
>
> How would that actually work? Presumably the goal is to have, say, 5
> years after VSI goes bust to sort out some sort of alternative, and
> presumably VSI doesn't want to sell licenses with no expiration because
> they would rather have a steady revenue stream. Just having it expire
> after 5 years wouldn't work if VSI goes bust after 4œ years. Perhaps
> one could buy a 5-year license every year.

Yes - the idea was a rolling 5 year license.

> However, that would mean
> that a customer would then have several valid licenses, and apparently
> VSI is also concerned about too many licenses being in circulation.
> (Unloading and deleting the old one won't cut it, since people have
> backups.)

You have a license 21-25 for node A and you receive a license
22-26 for node A.

Yes - the 21-25 license could be installed on node B. But
so could the 22-26 license. Both would be illegal.

Arne

In article <s8jhon$1c4i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
<arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:

> >> Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and therefore
> >> getting those licences early as a result).
> >
> > How would that actually work? Presumably the goal is to have, say, 5
> > years after VSI goes bust to sort out some sort of alternative, and
> > presumably VSI doesn't want to sell licenses with no expiration because
> > they would rather have a steady revenue stream. Just having it expire
> > after 5 years wouldn't work if VSI goes bust after 4œ years. Perhaps
> > one could buy a 5-year license every year.
>
> Yes - the idea was a rolling 5 year license.
>
> > However, that would mean
> > that a customer would then have several valid licenses, and apparently
> > VSI is also concerned about too many licenses being in circulation.
> > (Unloading and deleting the old one won't cut it, since people have
> > backups.)
>
> You have a license 21-25 for node A and you receive a license
> 22-26 for node A.

Presumably if a license for 5 years costs X, then when buying another
one which has a four-year overlap one would pay only X/5.

On 5/25/2021 3:59 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <s8jhon$1c4i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>> Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and therefore
>>>> getting those licences early as a result).
>>>
>>> How would that actually work? Presumably the goal is to have, say, 5
>>> years after VSI goes bust to sort out some sort of alternative, and
>>> presumably VSI doesn't want to sell licenses with no expiration because
>>> they would rather have a steady revenue stream. Just having it expire
>>> after 5 years wouldn't work if VSI goes bust after 4œ years. Perhaps
>>> one could buy a 5-year license every year.
>>
>> Yes - the idea was a rolling 5 year license.
>>
>>> However, that would mean
>>> that a customer would then have several valid licenses, and apparently
>>> VSI is also concerned about too many licenses being in circulation.
>>> (Unloading and deleting the old one won't cut it, since people have
>>> backups.)
>>
>> You have a license 21-25 for node A and you receive a license
>> 22-26 for node A.
>
> Presumably if a license for 5 years costs X, then when buying another
> one which has a four-year overlap one would pay only X/5.

Yes.

Or to do it the other way around.

If a one year license cost X then a 5 year license cost 5*X and
a 1 year license extension of a 5 year license cost X.

Arne

On 5/25/2021 4:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 3:59 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <s8jhon$1c4i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
>> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>>> Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and therefore
>>>>> getting those licences early as a result).
>>>>
>>>> How would that actually work?  Presumably the goal is to have, say, 5
>>>> years after VSI goes bust to sort out some sort of alternative, and
>>>> presumably VSI doesn't want to sell licenses with no expiration because
>>>> they would rather have a steady revenue stream.  Just having it expire
>>>> after 5 years wouldn't work if VSI goes bust after 4œ years.  Perhaps
>>>> one could buy a 5-year license every year.
>>>
>>> Yes - the idea was a rolling 5 year license.
>>>
>>>>                                             However, that would mean
>>>> that a customer would then have several valid licenses, and apparently
>>>> VSI is also concerned about too many licenses being in circulation.
>>>> (Unloading and deleting the old one won't cut it, since people have
>>>> backups.)
>>>
>>> You have a license 21-25 for node A and you receive a license
>>> 22-26 for node A.
>>
>> Presumably if a license for 5 years costs X, then when buying another
>> one which has a four-year overlap one would pay only X/5.
>
> Yes.
>
> Or to do it the other way around.
>
> If a one year license cost X then a 5 year license cost 5*X and
> a 1 year license extension of a 5 year license cost X.

And maybe they could make the actual license follow extension model, so
it would be:
* you pay 5X for a license 21-25
* next year you pay X for a license 25-26 (extension license)

Or whatever. The point is simply that customers know they have
AVG=4.5 MIN=4.0 MAX=5.0 left which is better than
AVG=0.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=1.0 and AVG=2.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=5.0 for
normal 1 and 5 year contracts.

Arne

On 5/25/2021 2:17 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-05-25, VMSgenerations working group <working.group@vmsgenerations.fr> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it is time for us to say that we did send a second letter to VSI
>> on May 7th after their unsatisfying answer (that they decided to make
>> public via gtug.de).
>>
>> We provided customers concerns and feedbacks on inconsistencies in the
>> licensing policy.
>>
>> We suggested ways for a positive exit on this VSI originated crisis but
>> are still waiting for a reaction.
>>
>
> What kind of things did you suggest ?
>
> Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and therefore
> getting those licences early as a result).
>
> I have suggested an escrow approach which (if done properly) should
> satisfy most of the concerns.

The advance purchase still has a "drop dead" date. Bad idea.

Escrow is reasonable.

>> We plan to keep users informed but have no answer from VSI yet.
>>
>
> Thank you. Have VSI given you any indication when they might reply ?

Which part of "no answer from VSI yet" didn't you understand?

It's called "stonewalling" and a few other things.

Even an entity that is planning on moving off VMS, (some have been
planning for many years), and others, needs to consider a situation
where they could be put out of business one day, and address that issue,
sooner rather than later.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 5/25/2021 3:04 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 2:29 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <s8jeuu$air$2@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
>> <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>> Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and therefore
>>> getting those licences early as a result).
>>
>> How would that actually work? Presumably the goal is to have, say, 5
>> years after VSI goes bust to sort out some sort of alternative, and
>> presumably VSI doesn't want to sell licenses with no expiration because
>> they would rather have a steady revenue stream. Just having it expire
>> after 5 years wouldn't work if VSI goes bust after 4œ years. Perhaps
>> one could buy a 5-year license every year.
>
> Yes - the idea was a rolling 5 year license.
>
>> However, that would mean
>> that a customer would then have several valid licenses, and apparently
>> VSI is also concerned about too many licenses being in circulation.
>> (Unloading and deleting the old one won't cut it, since people have
>> backups.)
>
> You have a license 21-25 for node A and you receive a license
> 22-26 for node A.
>
> Yes - the 21-25 license could be installed on node B. But
> so could the 22-26 license. Both would be illegal.

If not "illegal", then what would you call ruining someone's business?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 5/25/2021 4:12 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 4:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 3:59 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>> In article <s8jhon$1c4i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
>>> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>>>> Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and
>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>> getting those licences early as a result).
>>>>>
>>>>> How would that actually work? Presumably the goal is to have, say, 5
>>>>> years after VSI goes bust to sort out some sort of alternative, and
>>>>> presumably VSI doesn't want to sell licenses with no expiration
>>>>> because
>>>>> they would rather have a steady revenue stream. Just having it expire
>>>>> after 5 years wouldn't work if VSI goes bust after 4œ years. Perhaps
>>>>> one could buy a 5-year license every year.
>>>>
>>>> Yes - the idea was a rolling 5 year license.
>>>>
>>>>> However, that would mean
>>>>> that a customer would then have several valid licenses, and apparently
>>>>> VSI is also concerned about too many licenses being in circulation.
>>>>> (Unloading and deleting the old one won't cut it, since people have
>>>>> backups.)
>>>>
>>>> You have a license 21-25 for node A and you receive a license
>>>> 22-26 for node A.
>>>
>>> Presumably if a license for 5 years costs X, then when buying another
>>> one which has a four-year overlap one would pay only X/5.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Or to do it the other way around.
>>
>> If a one year license cost X then a 5 year license cost 5*X and
>> a 1 year license extension of a 5 year license cost X.
>
> And maybe they could make the actual license follow extension model, so
> it would be:
> * you pay 5X for a license 21-25
> * next year you pay X for a license 25-26 (extension license)
>
> Or whatever. The point is simply that customers know they have
> AVG=4.5 MIN=4.0 MAX=5.0 left which is better than
> AVG=0.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=1.0 and AVG=2.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=5.0 for
> normal 1 and 5 year contracts.
>
> Arne
>

How easy would it be to replace 50 years of app development in less than
5 years? Perhaps significantly less.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 5/25/21 5:06 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 4:12 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 4:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2021 3:59 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>> In article <s8jhon$1c4i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
>>>> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>>>>> Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and
>>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>>> getting those licences early as a result).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would that actually work?  Presumably the goal is to have, say, 5
>>>>>> years after VSI goes bust to sort out some sort of alternative, and
>>>>>> presumably VSI doesn't want to sell licenses with no expiration
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> they would rather have a steady revenue stream.  Just having it
>>>>>> expire
>>>>>> after 5 years wouldn't work if VSI goes bust after 4œ years.  Perhaps
>>>>>> one could buy a 5-year license every year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes - the idea was a rolling 5 year license.
>>>>>
>>>>>>                                             However, that would mean
>>>>>> that a customer would then have several valid licenses, and
>>>>>> apparently
>>>>>> VSI is also concerned about too many licenses being in circulation.
>>>>>> (Unloading and deleting the old one won't cut it, since people have
>>>>>> backups.)
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a license 21-25 for node A and you receive a license
>>>>> 22-26 for node A.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably if a license for 5 years costs X, then when buying another
>>>> one which has a four-year overlap one would pay only X/5.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Or to do it the other way around.
>>>
>>> If a one year license cost X then a 5 year license cost 5*X and
>>> a 1 year license extension of a 5 year license cost X.
>>
>> And maybe they could make the actual license follow extension model, so
>> it would be:
>> * you pay 5X for a license 21-25
>> * next year you pay X for a license 25-26 (extension license)
>>
>> Or whatever. The point is simply that customers know they have
>> AVG=4.5 MIN=4.0 MAX=5.0 left which is better than
>> AVG=0.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=1.0 and AVG=2.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=5.0 for
>> normal 1 and 5 year contracts.
>>
>> Arne
>>
>
> How easy would it be to replace 50 years of app development in less than
> 5 years?  Perhaps significantly less.
>

Companies have been doing that for as far back as I can remember.
The University did it and it took less than a year. I still think
it was definitely not a bargain and certainly not a good idea, but
the reality is there are a lot of companies who have made a lot of
money doing it. Isn't that what Sector7 does?

And, just to add another thought to this. What makes you think
that the C-level executives aren't going to just see the 5 year
license as an incentive to convert within the next 5 years?

bill

On 5/25/21 5:04 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 3:04 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 2:29 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>> In article <s8jeuu$air$2@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
>>> <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>>> Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and therefore
>>>> getting those licences early as a result).
>>>
>>> How would that actually work?  Presumably the goal is to have, say, 5
>>> years after VSI goes bust to sort out some sort of alternative, and
>>> presumably VSI doesn't want to sell licenses with no expiration because
>>> they would rather have a steady revenue stream.  Just having it expire
>>> after 5 years wouldn't work if VSI goes bust after 4œ years.  Perhaps
>>> one could buy a 5-year license every year.
>>
>> Yes - the idea was a rolling 5 year license.
>>
>>>                                            However, that would mean
>>> that a customer would then have several valid licenses, and apparently
>>> VSI is also concerned about too many licenses being in circulation.
>>> (Unloading and deleting the old one won't cut it, since people have
>>> backups.)
>>
>> You have a license 21-25 for node A and you receive a license
>> 22-26 for node A.
>>
>> Yes - the 21-25 license could be installed on node B. But
>> so could the 22-26 license. Both would be illegal.
>
> If not "illegal", then what would you call ruining someone's business?
>
>

Poor planning on the business's part.

bill

On 2021-05-25 21:06:19 +0000, Dave Froble said:

> How easy would it be to replace 50 years of app development in less
> than 5 years? Perhaps significantly less.

That's something each organization developing and deploying OpenVMS
should think about, and should evaluate, given the SaaS licensing.

And for some organizations, the migration schedule is a bit tighter,
as—beyond the porting-related development work—the deployments will
have to be sourced and hardware installed and migrations performed.

And then to decide whether to start planning for or starting work
toward better app portability, too. Or to source permanent OpenVMS
licenses. Or to pay for a "failsafe" licensing; some form of escrow. Or
whatever is locally appropriate.

Which is got the whole discussion going.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

On 5/25/2021 5:06 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 4:12 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 4:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2021 3:59 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>> Presumably if a license for 5 years costs X, then when buying another
>>>> one which has a four-year overlap one would pay only X/5.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Or to do it the other way around.
>>>
>>> If a one year license cost X then a 5 year license cost 5*X and
>>> a 1 year license extension of a 5 year license cost X.
>>
>> And maybe they could make the actual license follow extension model, so
>> it would be:
>> * you pay 5X for a license 21-25
>> * next year you pay X for a license 25-26 (extension license)
>>
>> Or whatever. The point is simply that customers know they have
>> AVG=4.5 MIN=4.0 MAX=5.0 left which is better than
>> AVG=0.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=1.0 and AVG=2.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=5.0 for
>> normal 1 and 5 year contracts.
>
> How easy would it be to replace 50 years of app development in less than
> 5 years?  Perhaps significantly less.

Ongoing development and port/reimplementation are two very different
activities.

Moving some non-portable and complex code can certainly take
time.

But IT projects taking more than 2-3 years are usually problematic.
If feasible then chose common technologies and get enough people
working on the project to get it completed is the way to go.

Arne

On 5/25/2021 6:34 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 5/25/21 5:06 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 4:12 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> Or whatever. The point is simply that customers know they have
>>> AVG=4.5 MIN=4.0 MAX=5.0 left which is better than
>>> AVG=0.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=1.0 and AVG=2.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=5.0 for
>>> normal 1 and 5 year contracts.
>>
>> How easy would it be to replace 50 years of app development in less
>> than 5 years?  Perhaps significantly less.
>
> Companies have been doing that for as far back as I can remember.
> The University did it and it took less than a year.  I still think
> it was definitely not a bargain and certainly not a good idea, but
> the reality is there are a lot of companies who have made a lot of
> money doing it.

12 months is not that much if it is a complex application.

Architecture and high level design does not scale well. So it
takes some months before it makes sense to hire an army.

But when the project is ready for the army, then one should
bring in the army (if possible) and get it done.

Otherwise changing requirements, tech stack updates and
change among developers will make it a nightmare.

Arne

On 5/25/2021 5:04 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 3:04 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 2:29 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>                                            However, that would mean
>>> that a customer would then have several valid licenses, and apparently
>>> VSI is also concerned about too many licenses being in circulation.
>>> (Unloading and deleting the old one won't cut it, since people have
>>> backups.)
>>
>> You have a license 21-25 for node A and you receive a license
>> 22-26 for node A.
>>
>> Yes - the 21-25 license could be installed on node B. But
>> so could the 22-26 license. Both would be illegal.
>
> If not "illegal", then what would you call ruining someone's business?

Business??

Sorry if it sounds a bit cynical, but I believe that is the
reality: customer demand changes, vendor drops support,
politicians change regulation, employees leave etc. are
all normal business risk.

Arne

On 5/25/2021 8:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 5:06 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 4:12 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2021 4:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2021 3:59 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>>> Presumably if a license for 5 years costs X, then when buying another
>>>>> one which has a four-year overlap one would pay only X/5.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Or to do it the other way around.
>>>>
>>>> If a one year license cost X then a 5 year license cost 5*X and
>>>> a 1 year license extension of a 5 year license cost X.
>>>
>>> And maybe they could make the actual license follow extension model, so
>>> it would be:
>>> * you pay 5X for a license 21-25
>>> * next year you pay X for a license 25-26 (extension license)
>>>
>>> Or whatever. The point is simply that customers know they have
>>> AVG=4.5 MIN=4.0 MAX=5.0 left which is better than
>>> AVG=0.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=1.0 and AVG=2.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=5.0 for
>>> normal 1 and 5 year contracts.
>>
>> How easy would it be to replace 50 years of app development in less
>> than 5 years? Perhaps significantly less.
>
> Ongoing development and port/reimplementation are two very different
> activities.
>
> Moving some non-portable and complex code can certainly take
> time.
>
> But IT projects taking more than 2-3 years are usually problematic.
> If feasible then chose common technologies and get enough people
> working on the project to get it completed is the way to go.
>
> Arne

BA HA HA HA ........

Let me relate a story.

First, to set the stage, many times small to medium companies are built
by a knowledgeable person, and they know how to run the company. What
they can do, and what they can't do.

Now, Dad is running a successful business, and providing the money for
sonny to be out partying and whatever. Sonny has no clue, and doesn't
care, cause Dad is taking care of supporting him in the manner he's
become accustomed to.

As time goes on, it's time for sonny to learn how to run the company.
Either Dad wants to retire, or is otherwise no longer available, it's up
to sonny to be successful.

Of course, sonny quite often doesn't have a clue, and so, (usually on
the advice of some bean counter), the big consulting firms are called in
to help sonny out.

What's the chance the consulting firm will find that the business is
being run successfully? Slim and none. They will attempt to justify
their fees by making recommendations. Quite often they have no better
ideas than sonny, but, they'll never admit that. Also, when it comes to
the IT system(s), you can bet that they'll say the company needs to get
with the future, cloud solutions, WEENDOZE, and such. Got to throw out
that old app and system that has been running the company for years.
Can't have that. An integral part of all this is significant billings
by the consulting firm.

And so, this has happened with one of our customers. I don't remember
the name of the app(s), but it's a cloud based solution. The new system
was to go live last November (2020). Still hasn't happened.

A test sometime prior converting over to the "new cloud based system"
had the new vendor quite proud that they were able to handle 10 tasks in
5 minutes. This for a company that was handling over 20,000 internet
service connections a day, along with all the in-house running of the
company's business. (I'll leave the math as an exercise for the reader.)

Last I heard, the vendor had decided they had to re-write the core system.

So, anyone want to replace a rather complex application?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 5/25/2021 9:34 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> Let me relate a story.
>
> First, to set the stage, many times small to medium companies are built
> by a knowledgeable person, and they know how to run the company.  What
> they can do, and what they can't do.
>
> Now, Dad is running a successful business, and providing the money for
> sonny to be out partying and whatever.  Sonny has no clue, and doesn't
> care, cause Dad is taking care of supporting him in the manner he's
> become accustomed to.
>
> As time goes on, it's time for sonny to learn how to run the company.
> Either Dad wants to retire, or is otherwise no longer available, it's up
> to sonny to be successful.
>
> Of course, sonny quite often doesn't have a clue, and so, (usually on
> the advice of some bean counter), the big consulting firms are called in
> to help sonny out.
>
> What's the chance the consulting firm will find that the business is
> being run successfully?  Slim and none.  They will attempt to justify
> their fees by making recommendations.  Quite often they have no better
> ideas than sonny, but, they'll never admit that.  Also, when it comes to
> the IT system(s), you can bet that they'll say the company needs to get
> with the future, cloud solutions, WEENDOZE, and such.  Got to throw out
> that old app and system that has been running the company for years.
> Can't have that.  An integral part of all this is significant billings
> by the consulting firm.
>
> And so, this has happened with one of our customers.  I don't remember
> the name of the app(s), but it's a cloud based solution.  The new system
> was to go live last November (2020).  Still hasn't happened.
>
> A test sometime prior converting over to the "new cloud based system"
> had the new vendor quite proud that they were able to handle 10 tasks in
> 5 minutes.  This for a company that was handling over 20,000 internet
> service connections a day, along with all the in-house running of the
> company's business.  (I'll leave the math as an exercise for the reader.)
>
> Last I heard, the vendor had decided they had to re-write the core system.
>
> So, anyone want to replace a rather complex application?

Complex applications get replaced all the time.

But large IT projects are high risk. Over time and over budget are
very common. Disastrous projects that never completes are not
unheard of.

Large IT projects are not easy. And as with everything else
then a difficult task requires good people.

And a large consulting company charging 300 dollars per hour
is not a guarantee that good people will be assigned to
the project. That just guarantees that cost will be high.

Arne

On 5/25/21 9:34 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 8:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 5:06 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2021 4:12 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2021 4:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 5/25/2021 3:59 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>>>> Presumably if a license for 5 years costs X, then when buying another
>>>>>> one which has a four-year overlap one would pay only X/5.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or to do it the other way around.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a one year license cost X then a 5 year license cost 5*X and
>>>>> a 1 year license extension of a 5 year license cost X.
>>>>
>>>> And maybe they could make the actual license follow extension model, so
>>>> it would be:
>>>> * you pay 5X for a license 21-25
>>>> * next year you pay X for a license 25-26 (extension license)
>>>>
>>>> Or whatever. The point is simply that customers know they have
>>>> AVG=4.5 MIN=4.0 MAX=5.0 left which is better than
>>>> AVG=0.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=1.0 and AVG=2.5 MIN=0.0 MAX=5.0 for
>>>> normal 1 and 5 year contracts.
>>>
>>> How easy would it be to replace 50 years of app development in less
>>> than 5 years?  Perhaps significantly less.
>>
>> Ongoing development and port/reimplementation are two very different
>> activities.
>>
>> Moving some non-portable and complex code can certainly take
>> time.
>>
>> But IT projects taking more than 2-3 years are usually problematic.
>> If feasible then chose common technologies and get enough people
>> working on the project to get it completed is the way to go.
>>
>> Arne
>
> BA HA HA HA ........
>
> Let me relate a story.
>
> First, to set the stage, many times small to medium companies are built
> by a knowledgeable person, and they know how to run the company.  What
> they can do, and what they can't do.
>
> Now, Dad is running a successful business, and providing the money for
> sonny to be out partying and whatever.  Sonny has no clue, and doesn't
> care, cause Dad is taking care of supporting him in the manner he's
> become accustomed to.
>
> As time goes on, it's time for sonny to learn how to run the company.
> Either Dad wants to retire, or is otherwise no longer available, it's up
> to sonny to be successful.
>
> Of course, sonny quite often doesn't have a clue, and so, (usually on
> the advice of some bean counter), the big consulting firms are called in
> to help sonny out.
>
> What's the chance the consulting firm will find that the business is
> being run successfully?  Slim and none.  They will attempt to justify
> their fees by making recommendations.  Quite often they have no better
> ideas than sonny, but, they'll never admit that.  Also, when it comes to
> the IT system(s), you can bet that they'll say the company needs to get
> with the future, cloud solutions, WEENDOZE, and such.  Got to throw out
> that old app and system that has been running the company for years.
> Can't have that.  An integral part of all this is significant billings
> by the consulting firm.
>
> And so, this has happened with one of our customers.  I don't remember
> the name of the app(s), but it's a cloud based solution.  The new system
> was to go live last November (2020).  Still hasn't happened.
>
> A test sometime prior converting over to the "new cloud based system"
> had the new vendor quite proud that they were able to handle 10 tasks in
> 5 minutes.  This for a company that was handling over 20,000 internet
> service connections a day, along with all the in-house running of the
> company's business.  (I'll leave the math as an exercise for the reader.)
>
> Last I heard, the vendor had decided they had to re-write the core system.
>
> So, anyone want to replace a rather complex application?
>

Let me relate a story.

University is an IBM shop. All of the applications are locally
written. All the usual stuff, AR, AP, GL,, Payroll, HR. And
add to that the entire academic gradekeeping system.
One day C-level exec goes away to a conference and learns all
his peers are using VMS on a VAX. Comes home and orders conversion.
All work is done in house and is totally successful. University
runs on VMS for more than a decade. Successfully moving forward
to VMA on the Alpha. Everyone is happy.
Then, one day again, C-level goes to a conference and learns all
his peers have moved to Banner. Do I need to go further? Conversion
took less than a year and everyone is happy. Another decade forward
and no one even remembers what VMS was.

With the exception of people running systems with custom hardware
(which would pretty much imply still being on a VAX!) it takes
much less than most people here think to move to a different system
and there are more companies providing that kind of service than
there are providing support for VMS.

bill

On 5/25/21 9:49 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 9:34 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> Let me relate a story.
>>
>> First, to set the stage, many times small to medium companies are
>> built by a knowledgeable person, and they know how to run the
>> company.  What they can do, and what they can't do.
>>
>> Now, Dad is running a successful business, and providing the money for
>> sonny to be out partying and whatever.  Sonny has no clue, and doesn't
>> care, cause Dad is taking care of supporting him in the manner he's
>> become accustomed to.
>>
>> As time goes on, it's time for sonny to learn how to run the company.
>> Either Dad wants to retire, or is otherwise no longer available, it's
>> up to sonny to be successful.
>>
>> Of course, sonny quite often doesn't have a clue, and so, (usually on
>> the advice of some bean counter), the big consulting firms are called
>> in to help sonny out.
>>
>> What's the chance the consulting firm will find that the business is
>> being run successfully?  Slim and none.  They will attempt to justify
>> their fees by making recommendations.  Quite often they have no better
>> ideas than sonny, but, they'll never admit that.  Also, when it comes
>> to the IT system(s), you can bet that they'll say the company needs to
>> get with the future, cloud solutions, WEENDOZE, and such.  Got to
>> throw out that old app and system that has been running the company
>> for years. Can't have that.  An integral part of all this is
>> significant billings by the consulting firm.
>>
>> And so, this has happened with one of our customers.  I don't remember
>> the name of the app(s), but it's a cloud based solution.  The new
>> system was to go live last November (2020).  Still hasn't happened.
>>
>> A test sometime prior converting over to the "new cloud based system"
>> had the new vendor quite proud that they were able to handle 10 tasks
>> in 5 minutes.  This for a company that was handling over 20,000
>> internet service connections a day, along with all the in-house
>> running of the company's business.  (I'll leave the math as an
>> exercise for the reader.)
>>
>> Last I heard, the vendor had decided they had to re-write the core
>> system.
>>
>> So, anyone want to replace a rather complex application?
>
> Complex applications get replaced all the time.
>
> But large IT projects are high risk. Over time and over budget are
> very common. Disastrous projects that never completes are not
> unheard of.
>
> Large IT projects are not easy. And as with everything else
> then a difficult task requires good people.
>
> And a large consulting company charging 300 dollars per hour
> is not a guarantee that good people will be assigned to
> the project. That just guarantees that cost will be high.

Finally, someone says something I can really agree with. :-)

bill

On 5/25/2021 11:29 AM, Phillip Helbig undress to reply via Info-vax wrote:
> In article <s8jeuu$air$2@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
> <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>
>> Arne has suggested paying for additional years up front (and therefore
>> getting those licences early as a result).
>
> How would that actually work? Presumably the goal is to have, say, 5
> years after VSI goes bust to sort out some sort of alternative, and
> presumably VSI doesn't want to sell licenses with no expiration because
> they would rather have a steady revenue stream. Just having it expire
> after 5 years wouldn't work if VSI goes bust after 4œ years. Perhaps
> one could buy a 5-year license every year. However, that would mean
> that a customer would then have several valid licenses, and apparently
> VSI is also concerned about too many licenses being in circulation.
> (Unloading and deleting the old one won't cut it, since people have
> backups.)

Not that I have any interest in this topic at this point. I'd suggest
an update to the LMF so that it could support license extensions,
similar to the way VMS-USER licenses are additive. You could simply
purchase a license extension, specifically to extend your original
license. When the system starts it would load the base license and all
matching extensions. Each extension license could have a date range for
which it the system licensed, and could be specific to the original
license (or not.) This scheme could be applied to more license types.

This does not mean I endorse the way VSI is issuing licenses, but rather
a problem calling for a solution.

On 5/25/2021 10:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 5/25/21 9:34 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> And so, this has happened with one of our customers.  I don't remember
>> the name of the app(s), but it's a cloud based solution.  The new
>> system was to go live last November (2020).  Still hasn't happened.
>>
>> A test sometime prior converting over to the "new cloud based system"
>> had the new vendor quite proud that they were able to handle 10 tasks
>> in 5 minutes.  This for a company that was handling over 20,000
>> internet service connections a day, along with all the in-house
>> running of the company's business.  (I'll leave the math as an
>> exercise for the reader.)
>>
>> Last I heard, the vendor had decided they had to re-write the core
>> system.
>>
>> So, anyone want to replace a rather complex application?
>
> Let me relate a story.
>
> University is an IBM shop.  All of the applications are locally
> written.  All the usual stuff, AR, AP, GL,, Payroll, HR.  And
> add to that the entire academic gradekeeping system.
> One day C-level exec goes away to a conference and learns all
> his peers are using VMS on a VAX.  Comes home and orders conversion.
> All work is done in house and is totally successful.  University
> runs on VMS  for more than a decade.  Successfully moving forward
> to VMA on the Alpha.  Everyone is happy.
> Then, one day again, C-level goes to a conference and learns all
> his peers have moved to Banner.  Do I need to go further?  Conversion
> took less than a year and everyone is happy.  Another decade forward
> and no one even remembers what VMS was.
>
> With the exception of people running systems with custom hardware
> (which would pretty much imply still being on a VAX!) it takes
> much less than most people here think to move to a different system
> and there are more companies providing that kind of service than
> there are providing support for VMS.

Successful migrations are happening every day.

But unsuccessful migrations are also happening every day.

Experience shows that there is a risk associated with such projects.

Even though each individual work item may be simple then a huge
number of such work items becomes an issue.

IT projects does not scale linear.

And it does not help that a combination of decision makers with
little knowledge and young developers with little experience often
are convinced that for mitigation the priority should be:
1) right process
2) right tools
3) right people

(I believe in the opposite order)

Arne